Supreme Court Decisions, June 18-20, 2025: What They Really Mean
What Justice Jackson’s dissent revealed, and how 11 cases backed her up
This past week, the U.S. Supreme Court released 11 decisions, each packed with consequences, but most of the public conversation has missed the mark. Headlines fixated on hot-button issues like transgender rights or environmental policy, but few explained what these rulings were actually about. Most weren’t moral pronouncements or sweeping ideological declarations. Instead, they were technical, procedural, and often deliberately narrow in scope.
But that’s exactly what makes them powerful.
Instead of rewriting laws outright, the Court is subtly reshaping who gets access to justice, which government powers are allowed to function, and what kinds of legal challenges can even be heard. In many of these cases, the question wasn’t “Is this law right or wrong?”—it was “Does this law get reviewed at all?”
Let’s break down the rulings clearly, explaining not only what the Court decided but also how and why. What emerges is a pattern: a Court advancing a conservative legal agenda through quiet mechanisms, such as jurisdiction, scrutiny levels, and statutory interpretation.
Legal cases aren’t exciting or make great headlines, but understanding what the Supreme Court is considering beyond the headlines matters. We will do our best to make it as painless as possible.
We’ve identified three key themes across this week’s decisions. Let’s look at each theme and the cases that bring it to life.
No time? We got you!
TL;DR: What the Supreme Court Did This Week":
The Court handed down 11 rulings—none headline-grabbing, but all impactful. Most decisions weren’t about morality—they were about procedure, power, and who gets heard. Three clear themes emerged: Deregulation, States’ Rights, and Uneven Justice.
Justice Jackson called it out: the Court favors “moneyed interests.” The rest of the week’s rulings backed her up.
It’s not what the Court said;it’s what it made easier or harder to challenge.
We just hit 15,000 subscribers—thank you!
Get exclusive access for just $1/week or $52 a year.
Get exclusive analysis and fearless reporting you won’t find in corporate media.
Deregulation & the Administrative State
If there’s one area where this Court has been relentlessly consistent, it’s in its effort to weaken federal regulatory agencies. The justices don’t need to rule that pollution is good or consumer protection is bad. They just need to say that the EPA, FCC, or FDA lacks the authority to act. These decisions often turn on standing, statutory interpretation, or deference to agency expertise. The result? Corporate challengers gain power, while the agencies meant to protect public welfare are boxed in.
Back in late March and early April, we published a multi-part series about the administration’s focus on deregulation. Here is the first in the series:
Note: This article is more than 45 days old and now lives in the archive. Become a paid subscriber for full access to the entire 700+ article archive and exclusive content.
Oklahoma v. EPA (June 18) 8-0 (Alito recusing)
What it seemed like: A fight about whether states can pollute more.
What the Court actually decided: Whether the EPA could reject state air pollution control plans under the Clean Air Act.
Ruling: The Court sided with Oklahoma, restricting the EPA’s authority.
Why it matters: It limits how aggressively the EPA can push back on weak state plans to control harmful emissions, another example of the Court privileging state and industrial autonomy over environmental regulation.
EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (June 18) 7-2
What it seemed like: Whether small oil refineries can skip renewable fuel mandates.
What the Court actually decided: Whether the EPA properly denied exemptions for small refineries from renewable fuel requirements.
Ruling: The Court sided against the EPA.
Why it matters: Although technical, the decision contributes to a pattern of industry-friendly interpretations of regulatory law that favor polluters over environmental protection.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (June 18) 6-3
What it seemed like: A dispute over storing nuclear waste in Texas.
What the Court actually decided: Whether Texas and a private landowner (Fasken Land and Minerals) had the legal standing under the Hobbs Act to challenge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) license for a private company to store spent nuclear fuel in Texas.
Ruling: The Court ruled against Texas, holding that the challengers lacked standing because they had not formally intervened in the NRC licensing process. Therefore, they were not considered “parties aggrieved” eligible to seek judicial review.
Why it matters: The decision leaves the NRC’s license intact—at least for now—and sidesteps the bigger legal question of whether federal law permits private, off-site interim nuclear waste storage. While the conservative majority emphasized strict procedural interpretation, critics argue this narrows public access to environmental justice and continues a trend of limiting judicial review of agency actions.
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. (June 20) 6-3
What it seemed like: A telecom case about spam calls and consumer lawsuits.
What the Court actually decided: Whether lower courts must defer to the FCC’s interpretation of the law under the Hobbs Act in enforcing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Ruling: The Court said no, courts can interpret the law independently.
Why it matters: This ruling cuts back judicial deference to regulatory agencies. It’s another brick removed from the administrative state, as the Court pulls decision-making power away from federal experts and gives it to judges, many of whom are skeptical of regulation.
Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA (June 20) 7-2
What it seemed like: A fight over electric vehicles and environmental rules.
What the Court actually decided: Whether fuel producers had standing to sue the EPA for approving California’s clean vehicle mandates.
Ruling: The Court ruled in favor of industry challengers, allowing them to proceed.
Why it matters: The Court’s majority opened the door to litigation that weakens climate regulations, not by ruling against green policy outright, but by enabling industry lawsuits to chip away at enforcement.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a solo, blistering dissent, warning that the Court was “softening its standards” when moneyed interests are involved. She argued that the Court bends procedural doctrines to benefit powerful plaintiffs, such as fossil fuel companies, while ignoring the legal barriers it upholds for everyone else.
“That unfortunate perception seems pervasive and, to my mind, increasingly well-deserved.” — Justice Jackson
A Broader Pattern: Power Serves Power
Jackson’s dissent wasn’t just about this case. It reads like an indictment of the entire week’s docket. In every case under this deregulation theme, the Court ruled in favor of industry or state power—fuel producers, refineries, and telecom companies—all at the expense of federal regulators tasked with protecting public welfare. The exception (NCR v Texas) was ruled on narrow grounds regarding the strict interpretation of standing, the only time this week the court sided with the federal agency over a state.
The only consistent winners this week were well-resourced domestic institutions challenging oversight.
States’ Rights Over Individual Protections
In recent years, this Court has consistently deferred to states, especially when state laws restrict rights or roll back protections. The logic often isn’t about endorsing the substance of these laws, but about limiting the role of federal courts in overturning state-level decisions. This theme continued this week, where the Court gave states broad leeway, even when those laws disproportionately target vulnerable people.
We explored the administration’s unever application of their states’ rights doctrine. See some examples here:
Note: This article is more than 45 days old and now lives in the archive. Become a paid subscriber for access to the full 70 article archive and exclusive perks.
United States v. Skrmetti (June 18) 6-3
What it seemed like: A ruling on the legality of gender-affirming care for minors.
What the Court actually decided: Whether Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care violates the Equal Protection Clause—and, crucially, what level of constitutional scrutiny applies.
Ruling: The Court upheld the law, classifying it as an age-based restriction rather than one based on sex or gender identity.
Why it matters: This wasn’t a ruling on medical ethics or gender rights. It was about how hard the law is allowed to be challenged. By treating it as an age issue, the Court applied the weakest level of scrutiny, making it far easier for states to pass and defend laws that effectively target trans youth.
Stanley v. City of Stanford (June 20) 8-1
What it seemed like: A dispute over disability and retirement benefits for a firefighter.
What the Court actually decided: Whether the city acted unlawfully in denying a retired firefighter long-term disability benefits under a local policy.
Ruling: The Court sided with the city, upholding the state's control over employment-related benefit decisions.
Why it matters: The Court’s deference to the city echoes the same theme: local or state control over individual claims, even when the individual is vulnerable.
Together, these rulings convey a clear message: when states enact laws or enforce policies that limit individual rights, the Court is more likely to defer to them than intervene. Rights enforcement, in this vision, becomes optional at the state level.
Uneven Access to Justice
If the first two themes were about who holds power—states or corporations—this theme is about who gets to challenge it. This week’s decisions show a disturbing pattern: when the plaintiffs are individuals without institutional backing—incarcerated people, people under supervision, marginalized communities—the Court often makes it harder for them to seek relief. Yet when the plaintiffs are corporate entities, tobacco companies, or industries with legal teams and lobbyists, the doors of the courthouse swing wide open.
FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (June 20) 7-2
What it seemed like: A ruling on flavored vape products and public health.
What the Court actually decided: Whether tobacco companies can challenge the FDA’s rejection of their new products in court.
Ruling: The Court ruled in favor of those companies, granting them the right to judicial review under the Tobacco Control Act.
Why it matters: The Court is willing to stretch its interpretation of statutory review rights when industry asks for it, but applies no such flexibility to individuals in far more precarious positions.
Esteras v. United States (June 20) 7-2
What it seemed like: A technical case about criminal sentencing and supervised release.
What the Court actually decided: Whether a judge can revoke someone’s supervised release based on a desire to impose additional punishment for past crimes—known as retribution—instead of the legally authorized reasons like public safety or deterrence.
Ruling: The Court ruled that retribution is not a valid reason for revoking supervised release under federal law.
Why it matters: This decision limits judicial discretion and requires that revocation decisions be based only on specific, forward-looking factors listed in the law (like preventing future crimes or helping the person get treatment). It doesn't necessarily reflect a pro-defendant stance. Instead, it reveals the Court’s tendency toward strict, literal interpretations of statutes, even in human-centered contexts such as sentencing.
Perttu v. Richards (June 18) 5-4
What it seemed like: A prisoner’s retaliation case after he alleged sexual harassment by a jail staff member.
What the Court actually decided: Whether a prisoner has a right to a jury trial when there’s a factual dispute over whether he exhausted the prison grievance system, and those facts overlap with the substance of the case.
Ruling: The Court ruled in favor of the prisoner, holding that the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial when exhaustion questions are closely tied to the merits.
Why it matters: This was a rare victory for incarcerated people in the Roberts Court. While the ruling doesn’t directly address the harassment, it strengthens prisoners’ rights to fully litigate claims without being procedurally blocked by prison bureaucracies.
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (June 20) 9-0
What it seemed like: A terrorism case about the right to sue foreign actors.
What the Court actually decided: Whether U.S. citizens can sue foreign groups for overseas terror attacks under the PSJVTA.
Ruling: The Court unanimously upheld the law’s jurisdictional provisions, letting the lawsuit proceed.
Why it matters: This was the only unanimous ruling of the week, and the only one where individual plaintiffs prevailed, but only because the defendant was a foreign, politically unpopular target.
Procedural Wins, Structural Bias
This week, the Supreme Court didn’t hand down a single sweeping opinion, but it quietly redrew the boundaries of power and legal access. The rulings weren’t about grand principles. They focused on how the law is applied, who has the authority to challenge it, and what kinds of claims the Court considers worthy of full consideration.
In some cases—like Perttu and Esteras—individuals did win. However, even those victories came through narrow procedural paths, such as the right to a jury trial or a statutory limitation on retributive sentencing. They didn’t address the more profound injustices at play, such as harassment in prisons or the burdens of extended carceral supervision. They clarified rules, but did not shift the system.
Meanwhile, the Court showed far more flexibility when corporate or state power was at stake. In cases like Diamond, McLaughlin, and FDA v. R.J. Reynolds, industry challengers were welcomed into court, granted standing, and protected from regulatory oversight.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent in Diamond captured the pattern: a Court that softens its standards for moneyed interests, while demanding rigid compliance from everyone else. Her warning wasn’t just about fuel producers; it was about a judiciary increasingly structured around access, resources, and institutional power.
The Court doesn’t need to declare who deserves justice. It shows us one ruling at a time.
We just hit 15,000 subscribers—thank you!
Get exclusive access for just $1/week or $52 a year.
Get exclusive analysis and fearless reporting you won’t find in corporate media.
Bibliography:
Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, 606 U.S. ___ (June 20, 2025).
Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency, 606 U.S. ___ (June 18, 2025).
“Additional opinions from Friday, June 20.” SCOTUSblog, June 20, 2025.
EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC, 606 U.S. ___ (June 18, 2025).
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. ___ (June 20, 2025).
United States v. Skrmetti, 606 U.S. ___ (June 18, 2025).
Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, 606 U.S. ___ (June 18, 2025).
Stanley v. City of Stanford, 606 U.S. ___ (June 20, 2025).
FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., 606 U.S. ___ (June 20, 2025).
Esteras v. United States, 606 U.S. ___ (June 20, 2025).
Perttu v. Richards, 605 U.S. ___ (June 18, 2025).
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 606 U.S. ___ (June 20, 2025).
 | A guest post by
|
The right-wing controls the executive, Congress, most the remaining agencies, and apparently (shudder) the military and police. All we had for protection was the integrity of many district and appellate judges. That is now gone.
Thank you for bringing this to light !